Bringing the law into it

If you see me in court and somebody brings up a point of
law you may well hear me jokingly ask the judge “not to bring the law into it”. I don’t mean it (unless the law happens to be
against me, in which case I’d much rather it were left out), but there are an
increasing number of people who genuinely seem to believe that the actual law has
no place in a court of law. They will
happily quote their version of the law but the actual law… well we’ll leave
that at the door.

I recently conducted a trial at the start of which the
prosecutor forcefully informed me that my defence had no basis in law. I obviously told him that was jolly
fascinating and that he should tell somebody who cared. Next up popped the court legal adviser who
told me the same – in suspiciously similar terms to the prosecutor. I pointed out that my defence was valid at which
he scoffed. I recommended he go and read
a particular case.

In court, both the prosecutor and legal adviser lectured
the court that one part of my defence had no basis in law. I corrected them both with reference to the law! After much brow furrowing the legal adviser
managed to locate the relevant passage in Wilkinson’s. He grudgingly conceded that I might be
correct but then went onto give his own spin on the law that effectively
amounted to “well if the police officer doesn’t think this was relevant then
the court cannot go behind that.” Now,
this is clearly a nonsense – decisions by police officers binding courts might
be popular with Theresa May but it is rather a bad show for the concept of
justice. He also tried to distinguish the
case law from our case on the facts, despite him not knowing the facts of the
case law.

The thing that particularly annoyed me was the legal adviser’s
decision to give a detailed description of how the Court of Appeal intended its
decision to affect future cases WITHOUT READING THE CASE! All he had to go on were five lines in
Wilkinson’s that give nothing more than a passing description of the facts and
decision, while the actual report is about 12 pages long.

This is by no means an isolated incident. Earlier in the year, I caught out two
advocates attempting to use cases against me that they had glanced at in Archbold
but had neither read nor understood.
Although to be fair, in one instance the learned editors of Archbold had
got the case law wrong as well so it wasn’t entirely the advocates fault. One of the advocates was very junior so has
no excuse for having forgotten his legal research skills. The other was very senior prosecuting me in a
child abuse case in the Crown Court and so had no excuse for not having learned
the lesson of not relying on cases you haven’t bothered to read! Incidentally, in both instances I had
anticipated the relevance of these cases in my preparation and so took the
trouble to read them in advance.

I imagine that this is a new thing, although, like
complaining about the atrocious behaviour of the modern youth, it may be as old
a complaint as time itself.

I can’t help but wondering whether the lack of investment
into the Criminal Justice System is behind what seems to me like a downward
trend in the effort put into researching the law for cases. Staff levels in magistrates courts have been heavily
cut, as have costs in the CPS and defence firms all of which means there are
often less people trying to do the same (or often more) work thus leaving
little time for preparation, which includes proper research of the law. In the magistrates’ court, it is very common
to see a prosecutor who has been handed several piles of papers with no
opportunity to read any of them immediately before the trial begins. It also means that legal advisers frequently
rely on elderly copies of legal books and have no access to the online research
tools that are available, which can cost several thousand pounds per year to
access.

Get link

Facebook

Twitter

Pinterest

Google+

Email

Other Apps

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a
roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the
question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge
or take no further action (NFA)?” What are the
options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available
to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to
attend court. Charging means that you
are given police bail and are required to attend court in person. A summons is an order from the court for you
to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf. In many cases where a person is summonsed,
the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution. These can be a simple caution, which on the
face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional
caution. Conditions could include a
requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc. Either…

Big news in the UK today is the case of Laura Plummer, a 33
year old British woman who managed to “accidentally” plead guilty to importing
Tramadol painkiller tablets into Egypt in a bizarre misunderstanding on
Christmas Day. She has now been sentenced to three years imprisonment by the
court. In Egypt it seems that the possession and importation of
Tramadol is banned without a special prescription because it is widely abused
in that country. Ms Plummer has said that she did not know the medication was
illegal in Egypt and had taken it into the country for her Egyptian boyfriend,
Omar Caboo, who is also 33 years old. According to the news reports I’ve read
of Ms Plummer’s account and those given by her family to explain her actions, Ms
Plummer obtained the drugs from a friend here in the UK. It is unclear whether
that friend was in possession of a prescription nor, if they were, how it came
to be that they built up such an extensive stockpile if they genuinely required
the medication –…

I am a solicitor-advocate who specialises in motoring law with a particular interest in representing clients who have been charged with criminal driving offences involving alcohol, such as drink driving and failing to provide a specimen of breath.